BioWare's Greg Zeschuk criticized Activision's recent threat to pull support for the PlayStation 3 as "silly," saying that it's unfair to poke fun at Sony considering the power of the brand and the volume of the PS3's userbase.

Last month Activision's Bobby Kotick dropped jaws when he declared that, if his company were "being realistic," they might have to "stop supporting Sony." Some of us took this as Kotick just being full of hot air, others took it to be conclusive evidence that the man had accumulated such riches that it had literally drove him insane, and others, like BioWare's Greg Zeschuk, thought he was just making a joke.

Saying what Kotick did was no laughing matter, though, Zeschuk thinks.

"I don't think it's really fair to poke fun at Sony," Zeschuk told CVG. "Certainly the Wii's been a massive success and Sony's probably not going as fast as they thought it would be but I think that they're starting to make the right moves and the software's coming along."

Not only is poking fun at Sony unfair, Zeschuk thinks, it's just plain silly talk. "I think it's silly to be saying you're not going to support Sony," Zeschuk said. "The brand itself is still huge and there are millions of [users] out there."

Seeing somebody defend a game company from arguably irrational prejudice is common enough on a videogame forum, but hearing it from a developer's mouth is a wholly different thing. Of course, Zeschuk isn't really white knighting Sony, he's just being a rational kind of person. They don't just call him a doctor because he's got a medical degree, after all. Oh wait, they do.

I'm gonna say he's not kidding when he says he's pulling support, why? Because this is just Activision showing how much power it has acquired. Imagine the drop in sales of PS3 Games if you removed all the Activision games? No CoD,no Guitar Hero, no Prototype. They'll just boost Wii and Xbox sales.

the thing about the ps3 being "over priced" for what you actually get, it's cheaper than the xbox360, there is a blu-ray player in it and the closest thing the 360 had was a $200 hd-dvd player but that's no longer around. to get a blu-ray player and play the 360, you have to pay more than the price of a ps3

deathyepl:Funny thing is, the thing that Activision is saying isn't wrong... if the PS3 were more reasonably priced, there would be a significantly larger userbase.

If it were priced any lower they'd lose massive amounts of money for each console sold. All the users in the world couldn't help them then.

What sony's doing right now is fine. They're pulling a modest profit, and really all they need to do is maintain that. I imagine they're staying par to the course and using this time to gear up for the next console generation. If they're next big release can start with the same momentum the 360 did, it'll put them back in the game. But I can't see them doing anything to the PS3 that would push it to launch level sells.

Sevre90210:I'm gonna say he's not kidding when he says he's pulling support, why? Because this is just Activision showing how much power it has acquired. Imagine the drop in sales of PS3 Games if you removed all the Activision games? No CoD,no Guitar Hero, no Prototype. They'll just boost Wii and Xbox sales.

I still say Sony has more power than people think. Many, if not most, of the Guitar Hero songs in the series are owned by Sony or a division that is owned by Sony. If Activision cut support, Sony could easily cut support for the songs themselves, effectively destroying the franchise, and put Activision in an even more compromising situation.

And really, anyone who thinks that Kotick wasn't just blowing off air and trying to make noise for Sony to cut the price is a little silly. Cutting support just because of the price of the console, that doesn't affect the company itself, is just silly, but in a way understandable. Either way, the PS3 is still a console where they can sell their product and it'd be stupid to cut support because of a price that doesn't affect themselves in any way.

Sevre90210:I'm gonna say he's not kidding when he says he's pulling support, why? Because this is just Activision showing how much power it has acquired. Imagine the drop in sales of PS3 Games if you removed all the Activision games? No CoD,no Guitar Hero, no Prototype. They'll just boost Wii and Xbox sales.

I still say Sony has more power than people think. Many, if not most, of the Guitar Hero songs in the series are owned by Sony or a division that is owned by Sony. If Activision cut support, Sony could easily cut support for the songs themselves, effectively destroying the franchise, and put Activision in an even more compromising situation.

And really, anyone who thinks that Kotick wasn't just blowing off air and trying to make noise for Sony to cut the price is a little silly. Cutting support just because of the price of the console, that doesn't affect the company itself, is just silly, but in a way understandable. Either way, the PS3 is still a console where they can sell their product and it'd be stupid to cut support because of a price that doesn't affect themselves in any way.

While what you say is true, for Guitar Hero, Activision could just take songs from Universal and Warner Bros., two larger music companies. I'm guessing Activision are just trying to get publicity/blow off steam/show their power, but if they are serious I think this could hurt Sony quite badly. I mean, say Activision pulled the plug tomorrow, no new Guitar Hero,no more Prototype, no back catalogue and no Modern Warefare 2. That is a substantial blow right there.

I still say Sony has more power than people think. Many, if not most, of the Guitar Hero songs in the series are owned by Sony or a division that is owned by Sony. If Activision cut support, Sony could easily cut support for the songs themselves, effectively destroying the franchise, and put Activision in an even more compromising situation.

This is a clever way to look at things.

If Activision get into a pissing contest with SONY, if SONY cared they'd win them over to continue support. I don't get why all these production houses are calling for the price drop, I think they're trying to curry favour with the gamers.

Sevre90210:While what you say is true, for Guitar Hero, Activision could just take songs from Universal and Warner Bros., two larger music companies. I'm guessing Activision are just trying to get publicity/blow off steam/show their power, but if they are serious I think this could hurt Sony quite badly. I mean, say Activision pulled the plug tomorrow, no new Guitar Hero,no more Prototype, no back catalogue and no Modern Warefare 2. That is a substantial blow right there.

Even so, Sony still own many well known bands and songs like Ozzy Ozbourne and Blue Oyster Cult. Just check the list of songs in the guitar hero franchise, and look at the list of Sony owned divisions. If a band in the franchise has any deals with any one of Sony's music divisions (of which there are plenty), then that band is out of the franchise for good unless Activision puts support back to Sony.

Sevre90210:I'm gonna say he's not kidding when he says he's pulling support, why? Because this is just Activision showing how much power it has acquired. Imagine the drop in sales of PS3 Games if you removed all the Activision games? No CoD,no Guitar Hero, no Prototype. They'll just boost Wii and Xbox sales.

I still say Sony has more power than people think. Many, if not most, of the Guitar Hero songs in the series are owned by Sony or a division that is owned by Sony. If Activision cut support, Sony could easily cut support for the songs themselves, effectively destroying the franchise, and put Activision in an even more compromising situation.

And really, anyone who thinks that Kotick wasn't just blowing off air and trying to make noise for Sony to cut the price is a little silly. Cutting support just because of the price of the console, that doesn't affect the company itself, is just silly, but in a way understandable. Either way, the PS3 is still a console where they can sell their product and it'd be stupid to cut support because of a price that doesn't affect themselves in any way.

While what you say is true, for Guitar Hero, Activision could just take songs from Universal and Warner Bros., two larger music companies. I'm guessing Activision are just trying to get publicity/blow off steam/show their power, but if they are serious I think this could hurt Sony quite badly. I mean, say Activision pulled the plug tomorrow, no new Guitar Hero,no more Prototype, no back catalogue and no Modern Warefare 2. That is a substantial blow right there.

In the end, even if it wouldn't spell doom, an action like that will only end up hurting both companies for no gain. activision might be pressuring sony, but I doubt they'd be stupid enough to go through with it.

the thing about the ps3 being "over priced" for what you actually get, it's cheaper than the xbox360, there is a blu-ray player in it and the closest thing the 360 had was a $200 hd-dvd player but that's no longer around. to get a blu-ray player and play the 360, you have to pay more than the price of a ps3

Except you always run into the problem that what you actually get isn't what most people actually want.

MrGFunk: I don't get why all these production houses are calling for the price drop, I think they're trying to curry favour with the gamers.

Because production houses don't have to pay for consoles, so the cheaper the consoles are the bigger the potential audience to buy their games is.

Sevre90210:While what you say is true, for Guitar Hero, Activision could just take songs from Universal and Warner Bros., two larger music companies. I'm guessing Activision are just trying to get publicity/blow off steam/show their power, but if they are serious I think this could hurt Sony quite badly. I mean, say Activision pulled the plug tomorrow, no new Guitar Hero,no more Prototype, no back catalogue and no Modern Warefare 2. That is a substantial blow right there.

Even so, Sony still own many well known bands and songs like Ozzy Ozbourne and Blue Oyster Cult. Just check the list of songs in the guitar hero franchise, and look at the list of Sony owned divisions. If a band in the franchise has any deals with any one of Sony's music divisions (of which there are plenty), then that band is out of the franchise for good unless Activision puts support back to Sony.

Well Activision seem to put the bigger bands of the genre into Guitar Hero so I seriously doubt those bands would suffer, and it is rare that a band gets into the game twice in a row. But I see your point, and I'm all for Duran Duran.

Sevre90210:I'm gonna say he's not kidding when he says he's pulling support, why? Because this is just Activision showing how much power it has acquired. Imagine the drop in sales of PS3 Games if you removed all the Activision games? No CoD,no Guitar Hero, no Prototype. They'll just boost Wii and Xbox sales.

I still say Sony has more power than people think. Many, if not most, of the Guitar Hero songs in the series are owned by Sony or a division that is owned by Sony. If Activision cut support, Sony could easily cut support for the songs themselves, effectively destroying the franchise, and put Activision in an even more compromising situation.

And really, anyone who thinks that Kotick wasn't just blowing off air and trying to make noise for Sony to cut the price is a little silly. Cutting support just because of the price of the console, that doesn't affect the company itself, is just silly, but in a way understandable. Either way, the PS3 is still a console where they can sell their product and it'd be stupid to cut support because of a price that doesn't affect themselves in any way.

While what you say is true, for Guitar Hero, Activision could just take songs from Universal and Warner Bros., two larger music companies. I'm guessing Activision are just trying to get publicity/blow off steam/show their power, but if they are serious I think this could hurt Sony quite badly. I mean, say Activision pulled the plug tomorrow, no new Guitar Hero,no more Prototype, no back catalogue and no Modern Warefare 2. That is a substantial blow right there.

In the end, even if it wouldn't spell doom, an action like that will only end up hurting both companies for no gain. activision might be pressuring sony, but I doubt they'd be stupid enough to go through with it.

I think it would actually hurt Activision more. I don't think many people realize how many suckers buy every single song that pops up on psn. They wouldn't want to lose all those microtransactions, especially considering how lucrative it is: each one of those tracks cost very little to make - most of the money probably goes to the license.

Sevre90210:I'm gonna say he's not kidding when he says he's pulling support, why? Because this is just Activision showing how much power it has acquired. Imagine the drop in sales of PS3 Games if you removed all the Activision games? No CoD,no Guitar Hero, no Prototype. They'll just boost Wii and Xbox sales.

I still say Sony has more power than people think. Many, if not most, of the Guitar Hero songs in the series are owned by Sony or a division that is owned by Sony. If Activision cut support, Sony could easily cut support for the songs themselves, effectively destroying the franchise, and put Activision in an even more compromising situation.

And really, anyone who thinks that Kotick wasn't just blowing off air and trying to make noise for Sony to cut the price is a little silly. Cutting support just because of the price of the console, that doesn't affect the company itself, is just silly, but in a way understandable. Either way, the PS3 is still a console where they can sell their product and it'd be stupid to cut support because of a price that doesn't affect themselves in any way.

While what you say is true, for Guitar Hero, Activision could just take songs from Universal and Warner Bros., two larger music companies. I'm guessing Activision are just trying to get publicity/blow off steam/show their power, but if they are serious I think this could hurt Sony quite badly. I mean, say Activision pulled the plug tomorrow, no new Guitar Hero,no more Prototype, no back catalogue and no Modern Warefare 2. That is a substantial blow right there.

In the end, even if it wouldn't spell doom, an action like that will only end up hurting both companies for no gain. activision might be pressuring sony, but I doubt they'd be stupid enough to go through with it.

I think it would actually hurt Activision more. I don't think many people realize how many suckers buy every single song that pops up on psn. They wouldn't want to lose all those microtransactions, especially considering how lucrative it is: each one of those tracks cost very little to make - most of the money probably goes to the license.

I've been trying for fifteen mintues to conform Greg's statement to some sort of Canadian stereotype, but I can't. I'll just say I agree with my fellow Canuck. Oh, and...

cleverlymadeup:The thing about the ps3 being "over priced" for what you actually get, it's cheaper than the xbox360, there is a blu-ray player in it and the closest thing the 360 had was a $200 hd-dvd player but that's no longer around. to get a blu-ray player and play the 360, you have to pay more than the price of a ps3

Oh. Well then I'm not going to buy a blu-ray player in addition to my 360. It's a tragic loss, as I NEVER WANTED ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seriously, why do people... Scratch that. Why do Sony Fanboys (Because they are the only ones) claim that a blu-ray player is the next step in the visual medium? DVDs are cheaper to make and honestly they look fine to me. Maybe if I had a TV across my entire wall then I'd notice the difference, but I can't afford one.

Ah, there we are. Sony Fanboys are the only ones who claim that a Blu-Ray is a must have because they're also the only ones who have the cash to blow on wall-sized TVs. Which is why they don't mind forking over the extra cash for a PS3.

VoidProphet:I've been trying for fifteen mintues to conform Greg's statement to some sort of Canadian stereotype, but I can't. I'll just say I agree with my fellow Canuck. Oh, and...

cleverlymadeup:The thing about the ps3 being "over priced" for what you actually get, it's cheaper than the xbox360, there is a blu-ray player in it and the closest thing the 360 had was a $200 hd-dvd player but that's no longer around. to get a blu-ray player and play the 360, you have to pay more than the price of a ps3

Oh. Well then I'm not going to buy a blu-ray player in addition to my 360. It's a tragic loss, as I NEVER WANTED ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seriously, why do people... Scratch that. Why do Sony Fanboys (Because they are the only ones) claim that a blu-ray player is the next step in the visual medium? DVDs are cheaper to make and honestly they look fine to me. Maybe if I had a TV across my entire wall then I'd notice the difference, but I can't afford one.

Ah, there we are. Sony Fanboys are the only ones who claim that a Blu-Ray is a must have because they're also the only ones who have the cash to blow on wall-sized TVs. Which is why they don't mind forking over the extra cash for a PS3.

VoidProphet:Oh. Well then I'm not going to buy a blu-ray player in addition to my 360. It's a tragic loss, as I NEVER WANTED ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seriously, why do people... Scratch that. Why do Sony Fanboys (Because they are the only ones) claim that a blu-ray player is the next step in the visual medium? DVDs are cheaper to make and honestly they look fine to me. Maybe if I had a TV across my entire wall then I'd notice the difference, but I can't afford one.

Ah, there we are. Sony Fanboys are the only ones who claim that a Blu-Ray is a must have because they're also the only ones who have the cash to blow on wall-sized TVs. Which is why they don't mind forking over the extra cash for a PS3.

I get it now.

I patiently saved my money up and spent $600 on my PS3, yet I'd hardly call myself "rich". I got my HDTV through human error when it was originally priced at $750 but I got it at $300, I'd call that luck. Why is it that hard to assume that the people who bought a PS3 saved up for it? Oh, that's right, because it's easier to act as if they're the "Rich" guys and act as if you're the poor "victim". Get a job, save up, don't spend your money recklessly, and you can have a PS3 by the end of the month depending on the job.

If you want to buy a PS3, save up, it's that simple. No use whining about the price because it's not going to magically do that. Either wait for a price drop patiently, or patiently save up money to get a PS3. Simple as that.

Blu-ray is a step in visual medium, whether a new format comes around the corner is a different matter entirely, but the only way you can deny that Blu-ray is superior to DVDs is if you don't know anything about it, if you don't have a good enough TV, and if you're blind. It's expensive, sure, but so are all new technologies at first. It may look "fine" to you, but that does not mean that Blu-ray doesn't have it's own advantages. We can only stay with DVDs for so long, it's time to move up to better technologies, of which Blu-ray is.

VoidProphet:Oh. Well then I'm not going to buy a blu-ray player in addition to my 360. It's a tragic loss, as I NEVER WANTED ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seriously, why do people... Scratch that. Why do Sony Fanboys (Because they are the only ones) claim that a blu-ray player is the next step in the visual medium? DVDs are cheaper to make and honestly they look fine to me. Maybe if I had a TV across my entire wall then I'd notice the difference, but I can't afford one.

Ah, there we are. Sony Fanboys are the only ones who claim that a Blu-Ray is a must have because they're also the only ones who have the cash to blow on wall-sized TVs. Which is why they don't mind forking over the extra cash for a PS3.

I get it now.

I patiently saved my money up and spent $600 on my PS3, yet I'd hardly call myself "rich". I got my HDTV through human error when it was originally priced at $750 but I got it at $300, I'd call that luck. Why is it that hard to assume that the people who bought a PS3 saved up for it? Oh, that's right, because it's easier to act as if they're the "Rich" guys and act as if you're the poor "victim". Get a job, save up, don't spend your money recklessly, and you can have a PS3 by the end of the month depending on the job.

If you want to buy a PS3, save up, it's that simple. No use whining about the price because it's not going to magically do that. Either wait for a price drop patiently, or patiently save up money to get a PS3. Simple as that.

Blu-ray is a step in visual medium, whether a new format comes around the corner is a different matter entirely, but the only way you can deny that Blu-ray is superior to DVDs is if you don't know anything about it, if you don't have a good enough TV, and if you're blind. It's expensive, sure, but so are all new technologies at first. It may look "fine" to you, but that does not mean that Blu-ray doesn't have it's own advantages. We can only stay with DVDs for so long, it's time to move up to better technologies, of which Blu-ray is.

Bluray Disks 25GB per layer.DVD9 Holds 8.5GB (about 4.5GB per layer.)

1 Bluray Disk = 3 DVD 9 disks.Producing 1 BD disk = Cheaper then 2+ DVD9s. Not because of how cheap each individual disk is, but how expensive it is to create the master disk. 1 BD master-disk much, much cheaper then 2+ dvd master disks. Specially considering that in the stamping they are only good for so many uses. >_> (If they are only good for 10,000 disks, you can see how the costs start to skyrocket)

Bluray Disks are more resilient to damage then dvd. Seriously, dvd you get SCRATCHES in the dvd drive! From dust! Bluray? Mine still look brand spanking new.

Why are BD an important step into the next generation of gaming?Each disk can hold more data, more data means, developers can spend less time compressing there games to fit on as few disks as possible. Ask any developer during the ps2/xbox era, what the biggest challange is, And that was putting all that shit, onto one disk. And its alot more complicated then the way you make your 'home movies' or 'data' disks that you store away your 'backup'. Disk drive run games, need to keep certain data located, I believe near inner ring for the faster 'read' times, and this data has to be the main 'engine' data. Other things like the 'actual game' is what gets loaded during yoru loading screen and buffered in the consoles internal memory. This is also another advantage to the Ps3, And its somethign no ones looking at.

Biggest problem with the PS2?DvD drive. The first genereation of PS2's were considered Bricks, simply because they were about as useful as one after a few months of play. This was attributed to poor lasers, and the 'motors' that turn the disk. DVD's on orginal ps2's killed them. (PS2 games had a different coating and the lasers were supposed to read them. If you watched to many dvd's it screwed up the laser. This is why you could only play newer ps2 games, or dvds on your old ps2s cause the older games use that layer that it just can't read. Ironically it was blue.

Xbox had an issue with its disk drive to, If i'm not mistaken it had to do with the drive just, failing.

Every ps3 has a hard drive, that means they can 'buffer' that data ONTO the hard drive, meaning they can use the disk drive in the ps3 less! Means, the drives going to last alot longer!Your hard drive? Well, those can last somewhere along 2-10 years, directly proportional to the porn you download onto it... Porn gums up the gears.

1 Bluray Disk = 3 DVD 9 disks.Producing 1 BD disk = Cheaper then 2+ DVD9s. Not because of how cheap each individual disk is, but how expensive it is to create the master disk. 1 BD master-disk much, much cheaper then 2+ dvd master disks. Specially considering that in the stamping they are only good for so many uses. >_> (If they are only good for 10,000 disks, you can see how the costs start to skyrocket)

Bluray Disks are more resilient to damage then dvd. Seriously, dvd you get SCRATCHES in the dvd drive! From dust! Bluray? Mine still look brand spanking new.

Why are BD an important step into the next generation of gaming?Each disk can hold more data, more data means, developers can spend less time compressing there games to fit on as few disks as possible. Ask any developer during the ps2/xbox era, what the biggest challange is, And that was putting all that shit, onto one disk. And its alot more complicated then the way you make your 'home movies' or 'data' disks that you store away your 'backup'. Disk drive run games, need to keep certain data located, I believe near inner ring for the faster 'read' times, and this data has to be the main 'engine' data. Other things like the 'actual game' is what gets loaded during yoru loading screen and buffered in the consoles internal memory. This is also another advantage to the Ps3, And its somethign no ones looking at.

Biggest problem with the PS2?DvD drive. The first genereation of PS2's were considered Bricks, simply because they were about as useful as one after a few months of play. This was attributed to poor lasers, and the 'motors' that turn the disk. DVD's on orginal ps2's killed them. (PS2 games had a different coating and the lasers were supposed to read them. If you watched to many dvd's it screwed up the laser. This is why you could only play newer ps2 games, or dvds on your old ps2s cause the older games use that layer that it just can't read. Ironically it was blue.

Xbox had an issue with its disk drive to, If i'm not mistaken it had to do with the drive just, failing.

Every ps3 has a hard drive, that means they can 'buffer' that data ONTO the hard drive, meaning they can use the disk drive in the ps3 less! Means, the drives going to last alot longer!Your hard drive? Well, those can last somewhere along 2-10 years, directly proportional to the porn you download onto it... Porn gums up the gears.

VoidProphet:I've been trying for fifteen mintues to conform Greg's statement to some sort of Canadian stereotype, but I can't. I'll just say I agree with my fellow Canuck. Oh, and...

cleverlymadeup:The thing about the ps3 being "over priced" for what you actually get, it's cheaper than the xbox360, there is a blu-ray player in it and the closest thing the 360 had was a $200 hd-dvd player but that's no longer around. to get a blu-ray player and play the 360, you have to pay more than the price of a ps3

Oh. Well then I'm not going to buy a blu-ray player in addition to my 360. It's a tragic loss, as I NEVER WANTED ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seriously, why do people... Scratch that. Why do Sony Fanboys (Because they are the only ones) claim that a blu-ray player is the next step in the visual medium? DVDs are cheaper to make and honestly they look fine to me. Maybe if I had a TV across my entire wall then I'd notice the difference, but I can't afford one.

Ah, there we are. Sony Fanboys are the only ones who claim that a Blu-Ray is a must have because they're also the only ones who have the cash to blow on wall-sized TVs. Which is why they don't mind forking over the extra cash for a PS3.

I get it now.

Does someone need to go back to school? It's called "saving up for a console". I'm sure you've heard it. It's where you gather a set amount of money over a period of time until you have said money. I'm sure even you can do that.

Oh. Well then I'm not going to buy a blu-ray player in addition to my 360. It's a tragic loss, as I NEVER WANTED ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seriously, why do people... Scratch that. Why do Sony Fanboys (Because they are the only ones) claim that a blu-ray player is the next step in the visual medium? DVDs are cheaper to make and honestly they look fine to me. Maybe if I had a TV across my entire wall then I'd notice the difference, but I can't afford one.

i will get to put you into a pile of fanboys but i also get to say you've never seen a blu-ray on a HDTV. saying there's no difference with blu-ray and dvd is much like snow tires. there is only 2 groups of people, those who have say there isn't a difference and those that say there is.

the difference between those two groups is the ones that say "there is no difference" haven't actually seen or used the product on used on the proper medium. the ones that say "you can easily see the difference" have used the products

Sevre90210:While what you say is true, for Guitar Hero, Activision could just take songs from Universal and Warner Bros., two larger music companies. I'm guessing Activision are just trying to get publicity/blow off steam/show their power, but if they are serious I think this could hurt Sony quite badly. I mean, say Activision pulled the plug tomorrow, no new Guitar Hero,no more Prototype, no back catalogue and no Modern Warefare 2. That is a substantial blow right there.

Even so, Sony still own many well known bands and songs like Ozzy Ozbourne and Blue Oyster Cult. Just check the list of songs in the guitar hero franchise, and look at the list of Sony owned divisions. If a band in the franchise has any deals with any one of Sony's music divisions (of which there are plenty), then that band is out of the franchise for good unless Activision puts support back to Sony.

Well in contrast to what Activision said, I say consoles would sell more if the prices of games were cheaper. I have no problem shelling out $400 for a console because it's a platform, but $60 for a game? It's much easier for to me not to buy games, and I think I'll start with Activision games.

VoidProphet:I've been trying for fifteen mintues to conform Greg's statement to some sort of Canadian stereotype, but I can't. I'll just say I agree with my fellow Canuck. Oh, and...

cleverlymadeup:The thing about the ps3 being "over priced" for what you actually get, it's cheaper than the xbox360, there is a blu-ray player in it and the closest thing the 360 had was a $200 hd-dvd player but that's no longer around. to get a blu-ray player and play the 360, you have to pay more than the price of a ps3

Oh. Well then I'm not going to buy a blu-ray player in addition to my 360. It's a tragic loss, as I NEVER WANTED ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seriously, why do people... Scratch that. Why do Sony Fanboys (Because they are the only ones) claim that a blu-ray player is the next step in the visual medium? DVDs are cheaper to make and honestly they look fine to me. Maybe if I had a TV across my entire wall then I'd notice the difference, but I can't afford one.

Ah, there we are. Sony Fanboys are the only ones who claim that a Blu-Ray is a must have because they're also the only ones who have the cash to blow on wall-sized TVs. Which is why they don't mind forking over the extra cash for a PS3.

I get it now.

Well, HD televisions are becoming much cheaper to manufacture, which makes it easier for the consumer to purchase and Blu-Ray is the video format for the new definition. It has nothing to do with Sony fanboys, it's the next leap in technology. Blu-Ray tech is already becoming cheaper, so manufacturing costs will go down and the consumer pays less.

DVD's weren't the bargain bin price they are now when they first hit the market. Besides, the marketing push for Blu-Ray is pretty huge outside of videogame forums. Maybe you just don't watch TV though, so you might have missed it.

me:Oh. Well then I'm not going to buy a blu-ray player in addition to my 360. It's a tragic loss, as I NEVER WANTED ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seriously, why do people... Scratch that. Why do Sony Fanboys (Because they are the only ones) claim that a blu-ray player is the next step in the visual medium? DVDs are cheaper to make and honestly they look fine to me. Maybe if I had a TV across my entire wall then I'd notice the difference, but I can't afford one.

Ah, there we are. Sony Fanboys are the only ones who claim that a Blu-Ray is a must have because they're also the only ones who have the cash to blow on wall-sized TVs. Which is why they don't mind forking over the extra cash for a PS3.

I get it now.

After I made this comment, I left and did other nerdy things for a long period of time. I just wanna point out a few things and then let this thread die or get back on track.

1. I didn't post this as a troll2. I do, however, enjoy the vast amounts of fanboy rage it inadvertantly generated.3. I don't own any 7th gen systems, I'm a PC gamer. However having played all three, I actually think they're about even: The PS3 is the best console, the 360 has the most games which interest me, and the Wii is incredibly fun if rarely challenging.4. Of the 'points' the Sony fanboys made, only the above was reasonable, the rest missing the point or simply accusing me of being a gibbering idiot as that is the only way I could disagree with them. 4.5 I don't believe the one who called me a troll was a sony fanboy, just a net veteran.5. I have no doubt that either of the other two fanbases could be riled up just as easily.

Why bring this up when the last post was made nearly 6 hours ago? Because I'm bored, and these good gentlemen deserve a response to their arguments.

Hmm... As a ps3/360/wii owner, I actually feel for the Activision guy. Sony made a system that is hard and expensive to develop for that is also dead last in sales on the console market. I like my ps3 but it certainly doesn't the same sort of playtime the 360 does.

VoidProphet:Oh. Well then I'm not going to buy a blu-ray player in addition to my 360. It's a tragic loss, as I NEVER WANTED ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seriously, why do people... Scratch that. Why do Sony Fanboys (Because they are the only ones) claim that a blu-ray player is the next step in the visual medium? DVDs are cheaper to make and honestly they look fine to me. Maybe if I had a TV across my entire wall then I'd notice the difference, but I can't afford one.

Ah, there we are. Sony Fanboys are the only ones who claim that a Blu-Ray is a must have because they're also the only ones who have the cash to blow on wall-sized TVs. Which is why they don't mind forking over the extra cash for a PS3.

I get it now.

I patiently saved my money up and spent $600 on my PS3, yet I'd hardly call myself "rich". I got my HDTV through human error when it was originally priced at $750 but I got it at $300, I'd call that luck. Why is it that hard to assume that the people who bought a PS3 saved up for it? Oh, that's right, because it's easier to act as if they're the "Rich" guys and act as if you're the poor "victim". Get a job, save up, don't spend your money recklessly, and you can have a PS3 by the end of the month depending on the job.

If you want to buy a PS3, save up, it's that simple. No use whining about the price because it's not going to magically do that. Either wait for a price drop patiently, or patiently save up money to get a PS3. Simple as that.

Blu-ray is a step in visual medium, whether a new format comes around the corner is a different matter entirely, but the only way you can deny that Blu-ray is superior to DVDs is if you don't know anything about it, if you don't have a good enough TV, and if you're blind. It's expensive, sure, but so are all new technologies at first. It may look "fine" to you, but that does not mean that Blu-ray doesn't have it's own advantages. We can only stay with DVDs for so long, it's time to move up to better technologies, of which Blu-ray is.

Bluray Disks 25GB per layer.DVD9 Holds 8.5GB (about 4.5GB per layer.)

1 Bluray Disk = 3 DVD 9 disks.Producing 1 BD disk = Cheaper then 2+ DVD9s. Not because of how cheap each individual disk is, but how expensive it is to create the master disk. 1 BD master-disk much, much cheaper then 2+ dvd master disks. Specially considering that in the stamping they are only good for so many uses. >_> (If they are only good for 10,000 disks, you can see how the costs start to skyrocket)

Bluray Disks are more resilient to damage then dvd. Seriously, dvd you get SCRATCHES in the dvd drive! From dust! Bluray? Mine still look brand spanking new.

Why are BD an important step into the next generation of gaming?Each disk can hold more data, more data means, developers can spend less time compressing there games to fit on as few disks as possible. Ask any developer during the ps2/xbox era, what the biggest challange is, And that was putting all that shit, onto one disk. And its alot more complicated then the way you make your 'home movies' or 'data' disks that you store away your 'backup'. Disk drive run games, need to keep certain data located, I believe near inner ring for the faster 'read' times, and this data has to be the main 'engine' data. Other things like the 'actual game' is what gets loaded during yoru loading screen and buffered in the consoles internal memory. This is also another advantage to the Ps3, And its somethign no ones looking at.

Biggest problem with the PS2?DvD drive. The first genereation of PS2's were considered Bricks, simply because they were about as useful as one after a few months of play. This was attributed to poor lasers, and the 'motors' that turn the disk. DVD's on orginal ps2's killed them. (PS2 games had a different coating and the lasers were supposed to read them. If you watched to many dvd's it screwed up the laser. This is why you could only play newer ps2 games, or dvds on your old ps2s cause the older games use that layer that it just can't read. Ironically it was blue.

Xbox had an issue with its disk drive to, If i'm not mistaken it had to do with the drive just, failing.

Every ps3 has a hard drive, that means they can 'buffer' that data ONTO the hard drive, meaning they can use the disk drive in the ps3 less! Means, the drives going to last alot longer!Your hard drive? Well, those can last somewhere along 2-10 years, directly proportional to the porn you download onto it... Porn gums up the gears.

a lot of that was just tech talk... i'm still not gunna buy a xbox and a blu ray player.i don't play dvds enough for them to get scratched up. and basicly everytime i get and rrod i get a new xbox, hence, a new dvd player.